Boris Berezovsky: 'unreliable, deluded and dishonest'

Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky lost his case against Roman Abramovich after Mrs
Justice Gloster found he had been an unreliable witness who at times 'made
up his evidence as he went along.' Here is what she said about both
oligarchs.

Berezovsky’s evidence frequently could not be relied upon, a judge ruledPhoto: Getty Images

11:24AM BST 31 Aug 2012

Boris Berezovsky

"On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr. Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.

"At times the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events.

"On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements.

"He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them.

Related Articles

"He departed from his own previous oral evidence, sometimes within minutes of having given it.

"When the evidence presented problems, Mr. Berezovsky simply changed his case so as to dovetail it in with the new facts, as best he could.

"He repeatedly sought to distance himself from statements in pleadings and in witness statements which he had signed or approved, blaming the “interpretation” of his lawyers, as if this somehow diminished his personal responsibility for accounts of the facts, which must have been derived from him and which he had verified as his own.

"I concluded that, in the absence of corroboration, Mr. Berezovsky’s evidence frequently could not be relied upon, where it differed from that of Mr. Abramovich, or other witnesses."

Roman Abramovich

"There was a marked contrast between the manner in which Mr. Berezovsky gave his evidence and that in which Mr. Abramovich did so.

"Mr. Abramovich gave careful and thoughtful answers, which were focused on the specific issues about which he was being questioned.

"At all times, he was concerned to ensure that he understood the precise question, and the precise premise underlying, the question which he was being asked.

"He was meticulous in making sure that, despite the difficulties of the translation process, he understood the sense of the questions which was being put to him.

"To a certain extent that difference, no doubt, reflected the different personalities of the two men, for which I gave every allowance possible to Mr. Berezovsky. But it also reflected Mr. Abramovich’s responsible approach to giving answers which he could honestly support.

"Where he had relevant knowledge, he was able to give full and detailed answers; he took care to distinguish between his own knowledge, reconstructed assumptions and speculation.

Roman Abramovich

"He was not afraid to give answers which a less scrupulous witness would have considered unhelpful to his case. There were few differences between Mr. Abramovich’s oral evidence and what he had said in his witness statements.

"Such differences as there were, were largely attributable to the legitimate addition of corroborative detail in response to questions in cross-examination, and to difficulties inherent in the translation process.

"I found Mr. Abramovich to be frank in making concessions where they were due, for example in relation the backdating of documents.

"Whilst, not surprisingly, there were occasions where his evidence was inconsistent, or his recollection was faulty, or had changed over time, none of these occurrences was so startling as to give me concerns about his basic truthfulness and reliability as a witness

"I do not accept Mr. Rabonowitz’s characterisation of Mr. Abramovich’s demeanour in the witness box as “smooth” or “a highly controlled performance” or any pejorative gloss implicit in the suggestion that he had been “… meticulously prepared for the evidence he would give”.

"Mr. Abramovich clearly found the cross-examination process a stressful one, not least because he was not in control of the questions which he was being asked, or of the court process, and because he clearly needed to concentrate hard to understand and answer the questions.

I reject the serious allegations made by Mr. Rabinowitz that Mr. Abramovich was a thoroughly “dishonest and cynical witness” who deliberately called witnesses whom he knew would give “as they were intended to do, thoroughly untrue evidence designed only to mislead the court.”

"Neither the evidence, nor my analysis of it, supported that allegation. Likewise I reject the allegation that he manipulated the trial process or engaged in improper collusion with his witnesses, or was part of a “smears and innuendo” campaign.

"I reject the serious allegations made by Mr. Rabinowitz that Mr. Abramovich was a thoroughly “dishonest and cynical witness” who deliberately called witnesses whom he knew would give “as they were intended to do, thoroughly untrue evidence designed only to mislead the court.”

"Neither the evidence, nor my analysis of it, supported that allegation. Likewise I reject the allegation that he manipulated the trial process or engaged in improper collusion with his witnesses, or was part of a “smears and innuendo” campaign.

"In conclusion I found Mr. Abramovich to be a truthful, and on the whole reliable, witness."